The premise of these articles is: The Ten Commandments is a fundamental part of Christian and Jewish believe and of Western Civilization. In the last hundred years, ideas have been introduced which make breaking these Commandments seem not only excusable but virtuous.

In the past, there were always men who preferred vice to virtue, but they usually said so. If a man drank absinthe or smoked opium, he knew that this act was disapproved of and might eventually cause him harm, but he didn’t care.

He might think himself justified; however, he didn’t believe that he was committing a virtuous act when he did these things.

But imagine that someone mixed absinthe with juice and told children that it was good for them and would help them grow. Or that they put laudanum in gummy candies and told children it was vitamins. So that the next generation would drink absinthe and consume liquid morpheme—and suffer the bad side effects—without even knowing that it was harmful.

That is the state that we have come to be in morally…where the arguments in favor of breaking the Ten Commandments are so well-crafted that we now believe that doing so is a virtue.

Last week, we examined the Tenth Commandment and the common modern argument:

Nobody needs more than a certain amount to live. Over that amount is excess and should be taken away to give to the needy.

This argument, in many different forms, fuels much of todays politics. And yet, no one points out that to want to take your neighbors cars or tvs or vacations…is coveting. Even good people, who would never covet their neighbors good fortune often fall for this sugary lie: that it is okay to take the wealth of the rich.

Before I go on to part two, I want to stress that this not a political issue. This is purely a moral issue.

A moral person can believe, “We all need to do our fair share, rich and poor alike, so I believe in high taxes and many government benefits.”

But no one can believe, “The rich don’t deserve all that they have” and not be violating the Tenth Commandment.